1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

A. Article 31 of the Enforcement Rule of the Ship Act and Article 33 of the former Rules on the Registration of Ships (wholly amended by Supreme Court Regulation No. 2413, May 29, 201) provide that a vessel shall be cancelled for dredging vessels registered as construction machinery pursuant to Article 3 of the Construction Machinery Management Act, and the procedures for cancellation of vessel registration are as follows.

B. The record reveals the following facts. In other words, on September 30, 2003, prior to the amendment of the Ship Act, the dredging vessel of this case was registered as a construction machinery register on December 3, 2008, pursuant to Article 3 of the Construction Machinery Management Act, which was after the amendment of the Ship Act. Even after the registration of the dredging vessel of this case as construction machinery, the aforementioned registration of the preservation of ownership was not cancelled. After that, on the basis of the above registration of the preservation of ownership, the registration of the establishment of a mortgage, such as the registration of the establishment of the establishment of a mortgage in the name of the plaintiff, was completed on the construction machinery register, and the registration of the establishment of a mortgage in the name of the plaintiff was completed on the construction machinery register. At the auction procedure for the dredging vessel of this case, the distribution schedule was prepared in order to distribute dividends to the defendant in the first and third order as maritime lien and senior mortgagee in the order of priority.

C. The Plaintiff asserted that the registration of the instant dredging vessel was null and void as it was registered as a construction machine after the amendment of the Ship Act, and that the registration of the ownership preservation thereof was void as it is required to be cancelled pursuant to the amendment, and that the registration of the establishment of the establishment of the establishment of a ship in the name of the Defendant based on the above registration was also null and void. Accordingly, the lower court rejected the Plaintiff’s primary claim seeking revision of the distribution schedule, which is based on the premise that the registration of the establishment of the establishment of a ship in the name of the Defendant is valid, even if the pertinent law provides for the registration of dredging vessels and the cancellation of the registration of a ship, but does not provide for the validity of the registration of the ship already existed.

D. Examining the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court’s above determination is acceptable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles on the Ship Act and ship technique. The Supreme Court’s decision in the appellate brief differs from this case, and thus, cannot be invoked in this case.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

A. The lower court rejected the Plaintiff’s conjunctive claim seeking correction of the distribution schedule, on the ground that Article 2 [Attachment 1] 25 [Attachment Table 1] of the Enforcement Decree of the Construction Machinery Management Act provides that a dredging vessel is an object, including a vessel and a dredging machine, and any of the cases of separation between the vessel and the dredging machine, can not function independently, on the ground that the dredging vessel of this case can not be function independently, since the vessel’s ship and the construction machine’s construction machine’s construction machine’s construction machine’s construction machine’s dividends in the auction procedure’s dividends in the dredging vessel’s construction machine’s construction machine’s construction machine’s construction machine’s construction machine’s construction machine’s construction machine’s construction machine

B. Examining the relevant legal principles and records, we affirm the above judgment of the court below. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the main and accessory.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kwon Soon-il (Presiding Justice)